Anyone (other than me) Eyeing the Baby 35-100?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by drd1135, Sep 17, 2014.

  1. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Two inches long would be a sweet little zoom in good light.
     
  2. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Sorry. I didn't see the "Diddy" thread. Carry on.
     
  3. poopstick

    poopstick Mu-43 Regular

    112
    Aug 9, 2013
    Burlington Ontario
    This should be the thread we keep. The other should be deleted and forgotten about.
     
  4. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    Semi-tempted. Though I find f/5.6 at 100mm very slow. Definitely a daytime only lens!
     
  5. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    I am curious about the lens simply because I'm a bit underwhelmed by the slow telephoto options available so far for landscape use. And it is really small. If it ends up being optically as good as the 12-32 it could be very interesting.

    Jordan Steele (admiringlight.com) is at the show and handled the 35-100 though he couldn't take any sample photos with it. Write up on this page:

    http://admiringlight.com/blog/hands-panasonic-lx100-gm5-voigtlander-10-5mm-f0-95/2/

    At this point my best guess is that IQ wise it won't be any better than the 45-150 or 45-175 (which are certainly not bad lenses at all) but will just be really small. When paired with the GM1/GM5 could make a very interesting super small kit. GM1+12-32+35-100+9/8BC+15/1.7+45/1.8 would all fit in a few pockets!

    For me it will hinge on the IQ though - it will have to be wart free at F/6.3 at all focal lengths for me to be interested. Fingers crossed.
     
  6. hemuni

    hemuni Mu-43 Regular

    87
    Jun 18, 2014
    If it perform performs anything like the 45-150 I'm all over it.
     
  7. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Still, lots of older (and cheaper) 70-200 FF lenses went from 3.5 to 5.6.
     
  8. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    Even in FF those were daytime only lenses. :wink:
     
  9. stripedrex

    stripedrex Do or do not. There is no try.

    374
    Jun 8, 2012
    Long Island, NY
    Alex
    For me, at that f-stop I'd rather forgo the normal zoom and this tele zoom for the panasonic 14-140 ii. I don't have it (yet) but from the looks of it, it seems not much bigger then the old 14-42 kit lens. If it's going to be slow anyhow might as well superzoom it and stitch panoramas for those times you need to go wide.
     
  10. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    True. :smile: That's what IS is for.
     
  11. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    It is small, but I don't normally carry a lens that long for everyday or travel use. If I am going to use a longer lens then the f-stop is going to be more important than the size or weight. It does not fit a need for me.
     
  12. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    I have placed a pre order for it for some of my uses it is an ideal lens and I tend to use a tripod if shooting in low light as I still want to stop down.
     
  13. tlovegrove

    tlovegrove Mu-43 Regular

    94
    Mar 3, 2014
    Southern California
    Tim
    It is very intriguing to pair with my GM1. I do think it was a good idea for Panasonic. I love the 12-32 and it's hard to believe this is scarcely bigger than it is.

    As noted earlier, the IQ will have to be great though - otherwise there is no way it's worth the $400.

    But the biggest reason why I probably won't buy it - I recently took a big trip with the 12-32, 100-300, and 45 1.8, and I never once missed having a zoom in that 32-100 range.

    Tim
     
  14. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    I haven't heard much about it really. I like the range and size for sure and that is my sweet spot for Focal lengths. If $400 is the price, I'll have to wait and see what the IQ is like. It will have to blow away the 40-150 to be worth that IMO. I guess that includes the $100 Panasonic "premium". They depreciate faster/more than Olympus lenses, because of that.
     
  15. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe
    The Panasonic premium covers you for the lens hood that Olympus otherwise offers as an 'optional extra' and makes people pay $50 for ;)

    If the 35-100 'mini' as as good as the 12-32 then it'll be a pretty good lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    You mean that big ugly plastic square thing that came with my PL 25mm 1.4 that doesn't reverse? :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    The funny part is the the other thread used "diddy" whereas I used "baby". Both titles were equally vague. For some reason "baby" caused no confusion.
     
  18. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I'm more than happy with the Olympus 40-150/4-5.6 IQ. I can see this being an attractive alternative to those who like OIS better or have a Panasonic body without IBIS.
     
  19. hemuni

    hemuni Mu-43 Regular

    87
    Jun 18, 2014
    I'm quite happy with the 40-150 too, but this is about half the size and combined with the 12-32 makes for an even tighter set for my gx7.